Daniel Domscheit-Berg [right] used to be Wikileaks second-in-command. Disillusioned he left the site. Now he's founded OpenLeaks and is calling out Wikileaks' recent questionable behavior. (Source: AFP)

Most would agree that there is a need for whistleblowing outlets in
the media. Without the scrutiny of exposé reporting, there are serious
questions concerning whether the civilian government, military, and corporate
businesses would exchange integrity for potential foul gains.

With media shifting online, the web seems a natural home for a
whistleblowing endeavor. But the real question is -- who should be
entrusted with such a vital mantle

Criticism From Within

Daniel Domscheit-Berg, like Wikileaks' notorious founder,
Julian Assange, was a member of a high-profile early hacking community.
Whereas Mr. Assange frequented the Zen/Pacific Island servers in Australia, Mr.
Domscheit-Berg was a member of the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) in Germany.

When Mr. Assange looked to open Wikileaks, Mr. Domscheit-Berg
was already familiar with famous Australian who had committed cyber-crimes
under the named "Mendax". He agreed to participate in the
project, and for a time assumed the position of both spokesperson for the site
and its number-two commander behind Mr. Assange.

But in recent months, the German technology expert became troubled with
Mr. Assange's leadership and Wikileaks’lack of transparency. He also indicates
that recent leaks were badly botched and
questionable.

In response he has created a new site, with firm ethics guidelines,
dubbed OpenLeaks.

Leaks: Who to Trust?

When it comes to whistle blowing, the question of who to trust is a
critical one. After all, it's far too easy for international
cyberespionage to masquerade under the guise of "whistle blowing" as
some have accused Wikileaks of intentionally or unintentionally doing.

Ideally a whistleblower must have a certain degree of respect for the
government or institution he's exposing. Or perhaps more aptly, they
should desire to improve it through their actions, rather than destroy it.

Mr. Assange in recent interviews espouses such morals, but his
writings from the 1990s reveal a man who's firmly anti-government, to the point
of advocating anarchy. In a 1997 book, Underground: Tales of Hacking,
Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier, which Mr. Assange did
research for, he voices such opinions.

In the book, he and the author Suelette Dreyfus write:

As he quietly backed out of the system, wiping away his footprints as
he tip-toed away, Mendax [Assange] thought about what he had seen. He was
deeply disturbed that any hacker would work for the US military.

Hackers,
he thought, should be anarchists, not hawks.

Such a statement could be construed as off-the-cuff, but at least one
source who was a member of Mr. Assange's Australian hacking circle, who did not
want to be named, confirmed that Mr. Assange had advocated such anarchic
ideals.

And the recent leaks from Wikileaks certainly seemed more of a
bid to destabilize U.S. foreign policy, rather than merely call it out for
wrongdoing. While the blame for the publication of recent leaks like a list of top targets for terrorists to harm
U.S. national security rests partly on cooperating publishing organizations,
such as The New York Times, one has to question why Wikileaks
published them in the first place.

If its goal was merely to report wrongdoing, why was it releasing
loads of cables, many of which contained embarrassing or dangerous secrets
(vulnerable locations, undisclosed illnesses of world leaders, or political
tensions) but seemingly had little to do with wrongdoing?

OpenLeaks: New Leaks Site, New Perspective

Mr. Domscheit-Berg left Wikileaks some time ago -- and he is
not alone. In the last year or two, particularly after the recent round
of leaks, many of the site's top volunteers have abandoned it, questioning
whether the site is abandoning its morals for a darker agenda.

Mr. Domscheit-Berg sums up the sentiments of these former volunteers, stating, "In these last months, the
organization [Wikileaks] has not been open any more, it lost its open-source
promise."

When asked about Mr. Assange's leadership in a recent interview, he
comments, "It has weakened the organization. [T]oo much focused on
one person, and one person is always much weaker than an organization."

He and his fellow volunteers have launched a new site OpenLeaks
website, which is now live (www.openleaks.org). The site has not yet
published any leaked information, but plans to begin by writing short essays
analyzing information it has obtained.

For his part, Mr. Domscheit-Berg promises more transparency and
discretion. Whereas Wikileaks does not disclose details on its
leadership structure or finances, OpenLeaks plans on publishing reports
detailing its procedures.

Similarly, Mr. Domscheit-Berg says that if he happens upon a treasure trove of information, like the
illegally obtained U.S. State Department cables that were recently published by
Wikileaks, that he would be more selective about what is passed to the
media.

He says that by carefully reviewing the material, you kill two birds
with one stone. First, you ensure that each leaked document really
necessitates publication under whistle-blowing grounds, allowing extraneous
documents to be eliminated. And secondly, by taking a slower, more
considered approach, OpenLeaks hopes to not burn through its supply of leaked
info as Wikileaks is thought to have.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

quote: Anyway the governments work for the people, why should they then keep secrets from them?

Because people know jack about the really important issues? Providing them with the gritty details will just result in skewed opinions anyway.It's a case of "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth."

So, to protect them, give them no information? Last I checked the country was founded upon transparency and a government run by the people, not the other way around. To say people don't know anything about the issues is a blanket statement and is not for any one person to decide.

It is a common human reaction to take criticism as persecution. Look at any government, religion or charlatan(bit of overlap with the previous two, I know) and you will see the scape goat of persecution used instead of actually answering for the things they have done. Of course I have to pass some of the blame to the idiot populace that dominates our society for their willingness to be led astray.

Remember that one of the leaks from Wikileaks was the video of the helicopter shooting unarmed people and them killing the wounded (against the Geneva Conventions). They lied about it and said they didn't know how they died. While I am not for the weird leaks they let out about things they said about foreign leaders and so on as they don't really constitute cover ups, maybe they shouldn't write these things down or even say them if they are so embarrassing.

And so many others. It's just people would much rather watch Oprah instead and act shocked when this info gets into their faces. And by then, it must be government wrongdoing or some conspiracy, right?

I see you don't understand the difference between a country and people. I have the freedom to be as secretive as I want with anything, that is unless I'm under scrutiny of a court and then guess what? I have to answer honestly and completely or risk perjury.

The government is not a person, it does not have the right to privacy or anything of that nature. It is OUR government, therefore we have every right to know what goes on at any time we wish. The key thing here is a government for the people, by the people. It is our possession to do with what we wish, not some animate creature that has rights.

You may wish for a secretive government in thoughts that they know what is good for you, but considering the populace and the people in charge I have seen, I am not very comfortable with that, how about yourself?

quote: I see you don't understand the difference between a country and people.

Which difference is that? A country is the people. By your own admission, you have your own secrets. If somehow tomorrow you'll be a member of the government, do you honestly expect me to believe you'll start broadcasting every single conversation you have at work?A country or a government is not a different species, you know.

This knee jerk assumption that the only reason secrecy in government exists is to cover up wrong doing is as naïve as it is stupid. Having personally been privy to national secrets in the past; none of it was appropriate for public consumption and the release of such information would only have benefited one group of people that being the enemies of the free world. If you are an anarchist and anti-freedom then I can see your side of the argument.